tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat May 14 08:08:47 2005
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Subtle shadings of "then": Okrand's error ?
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: QeS lagh <[email protected]>
>ja'pu' Quvar:
>>I think using {ghIq} or {ngugh} with {-chugh} sounds wrong, also the
>>translation of it:
>...
>>this sounds wrong in english too, I think:
>> "If you do not surrender, and after that, you die."
>> "If you are thirsty, and next, you drink."
>You don't need "and" in these English translations; they're a bit
>misleading, I think. Certainly for the second, but {bIjeghbe'chugh ngugh
>bIHegh} makes sense to me: "If you don't surrender, then (at that time) you
>will die", in the sense of "if you tell me that you won't surrender, then as
>soon as you tell me, I'm going to kill you".
>Hm. This one's going to take a bit of pondering.
Wait a minute, now. As I pointed out, {bIje'be'chugh, vaj bIHegh} is
_canon_. There's never been any suggesiton until now that MO made a
mistake with that phrase. You may not like (or understand) how he
arrived at the construction, but it's canon. It is true that {vaj}
can be omitted, but there's no canon to indicate that it can be
replaced.
Think of {vaj} indicating the consequence of the prior action: "if
you don't buy, the consequence is that you will die." Makes
perfect sense to me. I always understood {ghIq} to indicate one
action following another in time, no indication of one depending
on the other, and {ngugh} as a simple timestamp, "then" as opposed
to "now". I think you're all making this more complicated than
it needs to be.
-- ter'eS
Savan,
QeS lagh
taghwI' pabpo' / Beginners' Grammarian
leghbe'chugh tIq, leghbe'bej mIn
(If the heart doesn't look, the eye will not see)
- Ubykh Hol vIttlhegh
_________________________________________________________________
Are you right for each other? Find out with our Love Calculator:
http://fun.mobiledownloads.com.au/191191/index.wl?page=template&groupName=funstuff